What do we want in the new CM game, Part Deux!

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Thinking WWII is still thinking inside the CM game engine 'box'. Why not think Vietnam Mekong river delta combat? By the time the game comes out our new president would likely be halfway through his first term. a riverine combat sim might be just the ticket.

You don't think CM2 will be out until 2010?

I would rather see a game running the gambit of the European war, 1939 to 1945, East and West Fronts.

Steve

[Pzman]

Originally posted by Cthulhu Dreams:

Load up far cry, or dawn of war or something, and have a look at the level of detail and what you can change!

Never heard of them, but still these type of games push my card (32mb). Also CM tends to have much larger visable maps then those games, (that is if BFC does not change the way Maps are shown)so you would still need a more powerful card. Some people have a few hundred dollars to throw around, and other don't.

Also untill BFC says there aren't bmps, who said there wont be any?

[shmeter]

I think, above all else, that the new game should be able to boot up and play relatively easy on any desktop/laptop/etc. that has come out since CMBB was introduced. (Heaven Forbid every computer enthusiast out there rifling through the new computer upgrade/soundcard/graphics card trend who wants more, MORE, MOOOOOORE.)

The main ingredient that makes CM so great to me is that it's pretty damn easy to play on most notebooks and computers right now, WHILE INCORPORATING all the DETAIL and TACTICS that beat out any other strategy game on the planet! If the new engine is worse off than that durned Soldiers Heroes of World War II system SNAFU, I don't want it. Simply too slow and painful on the engine.

Accessibility for the current and older model computers, same attention to tactics and unit detail, maybe more ATTITUDE and PLAYER RANKINGS as far as kills/medals whatever, but, finally, the BFC stamp. You guys can do whatever you want and it will be awesome, but just make it easy for the next generation of middle and lower classes to boot up without a hitch and sink their claws into it.

[Captain Pies]

It's been suggested by myself and others before but here it is again

1. Contour overlay for maps or even better the ability to overlay a scan of a contempory map or a fake map auto generated from the terrain.

2. Only things that would appear on an officers map should appear on the game map as generic icons, eg large groups of houses, rivers and known defenses. The game map could then be filled in with the detailed objects as LOS is achieved to various parts it. Should make for some interesting changes of plan as unseen houses, small woods or streams appear.

[jim crowley]

Nothing new here, I should think, but my two h'pence worth. All based on assumptions that BFC will continue with land-based WW2, tactical level combat on a similar scale to the original CM.

An option, at least, to have a more command oriented enviroment where only units in C&C can be given orders and from whom info about themselves and the enemy can be obtained. This could be watered-down to a limited set of orders and just generic info on enemy units. HQ's and individual leaders would become far more important and players would need to exercise control in maintaining and re-establishing C&C.

Another option to have even more intense FoW than "extreme", perhaps tied into the above suggestion. Certainly enemy armour hit/damage info should be much more sparse.

Potential leader-loss. Instead of platoon/company/batt HQ's reducing in size due to casualties, there could be a percentage chance, relative to the number of men in the HQ, that the actual leader is KIA/WIA. This would lead to loss of leader bonuses and potential disruption of chain of command.

More terrain variety, such as steams, trails, high, medium and low walls, all destructible; with more complex and realistic building types and groupings.

Hinted at by BFC previously; units having some "memory" as to the prescence of previously spotted enemy units. If this could be expanded to include some basic situational awareness about the terrain and the general location of the enemy perhaps the "dance of the headless chickens" could be avoided.

Linked to the above would be the AI setting up in sensible, in-command formations, without needing to spread itself all over the place to take advantage of "cover", which often isn't even needed.

A "solution" to borg spotting. Some of the above could go someway to alleviating it.

All set in Western Europe '40 and '44

Well, there's nothing like wishful thinking, is there?

Cheers

jim

[jim crowley]

A few more....

A broader range of pre-built scenario types such as raids, dalaying actions, break-outs etc. without having to rely on individual scen designers having to manipulate the standard and fairly limited probe/attack/assualt/exit situations.

This in turn could lead to more flexible victory conditions, less related to just flags and casualties. Instead of flags, possibly zones with each successive zone yielding a greater number of points for each unit that enters. Perhaps battles that end "naturally" rather than on an arbitrary timer, with more points garnered for quicker victories.

QB's capabilities expanded to include all battle types including river crossings, para and glider drops and able to include reinforcements and resupply.

The correct ranks of command for the British Army

Jim

[Sergei]

I'd like to see:

- hexes

- time warps

- killer spiders

- bristols

- where did I put my beer?

[yunfat]

Um... some of the suggestions here are so absurd I can't believe it. I appreciate the creativity of the average CM player, but why can't we narrow down our goals for the next CM in a unified voice, so someone actually listens. This is the most important thread we have as customers of the game, and some of you are treating it as a joke. It really pisses me off. I really shouldn't comment about what I want or don't want in the next CM (my protests and suggestions in the past have bordered on insane narcissistic tirades), but I think that we can all agree we want what's best for the game®. Can't we?

The deficiencies of the current CM graphics engine are abundant, yet some of you are asking for new physics models, realtime combat, and CM Vietnam. Some of these suggestions are not in the spirit of CM, others are merely dumb. CM is built by a small cadre of people... what some of you people want could not be undertaken by a developer with ten times the manpower.

Lets fix what we know is currently broken, lets max out the graphics and break compatibility with older machines (with the time between engines this is now a necessity), lets concentrate on 3d models and lighting. In other words, we have genre leading gameplay, lets tighten up the looks.

I am not trying to discount the opinions of the people who have made suggestions that I would classify as ambitious, merely trying to point out we have an opportunity here...

[Philippe]

There is something to what you say. However, I think we should remember that we aren't designing the game, they are. They know what works in the overall scheme, and what doesn't. And if that scheme changes at all, as it probably will, what works today might not work tomorrow. So it makes perfect sense to post a series of threads listing everything that we can think of, because we aren't in a position to know what will or won't work. I suspect that the good folks at BFC they are perfectly capable of relegating to the cylindrical file anything that, for whatever reason, doesn't make sense. This whole exercise reminds me a bit of Plato's cave. Even if an idea is useless, it might suggest something to the designer that would never occur to an outsider. If the discussion were too difuse I'm sure they would have said something to bring us back on track.

Now that that's out of the way, it was mentioned in another thread that it would be useful to have an extend game button somewhat parallel to a surrender button. I think it's a good idea that shouldn't get lost. How it works is up to BFC -- one approach might be to require both sides to ask for extension to make it kick in, another would be to make it automatic for a lesser number of turns, but at the cost of a few victory points. And with each extension the VP cost would get higher. How long the extensions should be is anybody's guess.

[poppy]

My hope is that BF dosent get caught up in the graphics aspect of the game and change the play mode to fit the graphics. I would be happier with an improved AI and a more realistic interface between troops,vehicles and buildings,a more realistic destructible terraine, being able to reman abandoned guns and vehicles, being able to man captured guns and vehicles, resupply in long battles, a new front line determination in operations based both on position and terraine rather than just position and my pet peeve, a higher fire power rating for the M1 Garand at 100m and 250m by a factor of about twice the present rating. The present graphics are, except for a few little things , plenty good enough to play an absorbing and challenging game. poppy

[Andrew H.]

This is a relatively minor point - but I wish that in addition to the way points are used for QBs now, you had the option of selecting a force and the computer would give your opponent/the AI the proper number of points to fight the other side.

So if I want to play a game with a platoon of Tigers and two companies of paratroopers, say, I can just choose that as my force type, and the points for the other side would be automatically allocated. I suppose this would most commonly be used against the AI - but it's a pretty easy way to try out different kinds of equipment without trying to estimate how many points you'll need to field a certain force. Particularly if you're playing with variable rarity.

I know this is not a big deal - but sometimes when I come home from work, I'd just like to play around with certain forces against the AI - and I'd rather just choose the force and have the computer figure out the points stuff.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by yunfat:

[...]I am not trying to discount the opinions of the people who have made suggestions that I would classify as ambitious, merely trying to point out we have an opportunity here...

I think you are right in pointing out that this is an opportunity, but I would add it's an opportunity to be taken rather lightly. I think we will agree on the fact that ideas voiced here are just that - ideas. As Philippe says, if it triggers something for the BFC team, all the better, but for the most part, I see it like when you imagine youself winning a million dollars: you know it will probably never happens, but it's just plain good dreamin' .

Originally posted by Philippe:

[...]it was mentioned in another thread that it would be useful to have an extend game button somewhat parallel to a surrender button. [...] one approach might be to require both sides to ask for extension to make it kick in, another would be to make it automatic for a lesser number of turns, but at the cost of a few victory points. And with each extension the VP cost would get higher. How long the extensions should be is anybody's guess.

There might also be some sort of optionnal reinforcement system tied to the actual objectives occupied/hold/taken/... i.e. to give the possibility to players to get back to the unit purchase screen to replenish their forces somehow, along a scheme of rules to be specified by the designer and/or QB rules like "ammo resupply only"; or a certain proportion of the initial points allowed at the beginning of the battle; or that the only units available for purchase would be those of the type already on the map. That could provide some nasty change of situations.

Did I say plain good dreamin' ?

[Guest citizen6]

I'd like to see a ABSOLUTE fog of war option for scenario builders... especially for campaign play.

~Each side has their own flags (objectives), so I won't know that Crossroads A is more important to the enemy than Crossroads B and he won't know which is more important to me. As in, I can't see the enemy flags at all. This would also make playing the AI 10x better as you couldn't predict their exact behaviour every game.

~Absolutely no "win % /morale % box"

[Halberdiers]

Wounded Animation.

Actually for infantry only we can see the change in the number of casualties in the main bar. The moral and number status , and the graphic reduce number of Squad in two or one man .

When we playing we can not see the moment when occur this change. Only we see our troops withdraw with panic. In fact, THE PLAYER IS NOT SHOCKED BY THE ANIMATION. As the Explosion animation done for vehicles (I say how important it is)

Now we can see the vehicles with an animation when are touched. But for infantry not.I suggest a few seconds of animation for the moment when the infantry is wounded .

I think this is the reason why we can read for other players , and me too, that we not feel those critical moments of the combat shock . And we expect that our infantry do what they can not to do.

I suggest that animations ,around the squad, only in the few seconds of moment of the change:

Do you think that a player make any question of the panic or withdraw of their veteran infantry after see those animations around?

On the other hand. I am not talking about the dead men that now appear in the game. I do not suggest increase the graphics of causalties . Those pictures do not give us much information about the combat moment.

Furthermore developers , a wounded animation could be implemented now around the three men Squad modeled for CMAK. Remember is only a few seconds of animation around the squad that could be more intense when more intense is the shock of combat. The animation do Not try to represent the number of soldiers losses in the Squad. A wounded-animation represent the ambient around a squad that is shocked by the combat , that can explain why my infantry are taking cover or panic or fighting with only two or three men of ten soldiers.

[ September 25, 2004, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Halberdiers:

Wounded Animation.

Actually for infantry only we can see the change in the number of casualties in the main bar. The moral and number status , and the graphic reduce number of Squad in two or one man .

When we playing we can not see the moment when occur this change.

Wrong. Look closer. At least the kneeling position has an animation when a man is hit.

[Halberdiers]

Wrong. Look closer. At least the kneeling position has an animation when a man is hit.

Yes ,the head is moved to the rear.As a face slap, that is all.

But that animation do not impact as this:

Furthermore, I'm not say that the Squad make the animation (as head animation in the kneeling position now). The wounded-animation could be added around the Squad during few seconds .Not in the squad. Around as the explosion for the vehicles.

[ September 25, 2004, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Peter Cairns]

In Bungies Myth and Myth2 you got Fear and Loathing, one was a terrain editor the other a unit editor.

In CM you get the terrain editor but no unit editor.

So what I would like is a unit editor that let you click on a unit when setting up a scenario, and as well as editing things like command, and amo open up the Bitmap and change colour insignia paintwork or whatever.

Modellers could still use the same method as usual but it would let the rest of us who have no particular skills do a simplified version

Over the years I've produced quite a few fairly accurate models of the terrain around my house, ( I live in the countryside on the Blackisle just outside Inverness in Scotland), but where I have a problem is that I live in a Pink house, so it never really looks right.

So being able to just open the closest building a change some windows and colours would be good. If for instance you wanted to create a historical scenario and you had pictures of the actual field, with units etc, then a simple built in unit painter would let anyone add that touch of detail to make it that bit better.

It does of course go without saying that someone would pretty quickly start using an army of "Pink Panthers", but well that's life.

Peter.

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by yunfat:

Um... some of the suggestions here are so absurd I can't believe it. I appreciate the creativity of the average CM player, but why can't we narrow down our goals for the next CM in a unified voice, so someone actually listens. This is the most important thread we have as customers of the game, and some of you are treating it as a joke. It really pisses me off. I really shouldn't comment about what I want or don't want in the next CM (my protests and suggestions in the past have bordered on insane narcissistic tirades), but I think that we can all agree we want what's best for the game®. Can't we?

While this does make some sense, we really don't know what's going into the next game and so some fanciful suggestions are naturally going to crop up. Many of the more far-out ideas are likely useless, but some will probably make it in. One I offered many moons ago (sun placed in sky according to latitude/longitude; and moves within the timeframe of the scenario - CMX2 Wishlist) was completely off the wall and seemingly difficult and time-consuming to implement, but it appears something like that may actually be in the game! :eek: (see IGN.com Article)

I have no idea if a Vietnam CM is possible, much less in the works, but BTS has said the new engine will be quite flexible from a programming point of view, and so may be capable of simulating a wide variety of warfare types. I'm sure we'll get at least one WWII-oriented game, of course, but that doesn't mean that's the limit of the engine. I'm hoping for a Napoleonic version myself, though that's probably unlikely.

BTS has put out 3 full games since 2000; they're pretty good at focusing on the task at hand, and are unlikely to get too sidetracked.

In addition to the article linked above, some more tidbits on what's in store:

Ammo consumption

CMX2 Details - dynamic lighting, shadows, battles passing from day to night, placement of sun in sky, line of sight linked with light levels, 2005 release

Theaters of War for CMX2 - No pacific theater for *current* CM engine

Small Scale CM3 - no tiles

- Chris

[Guest citizen6]

Oh yeah. I almost forgot my #1 request for campaign scenario builders like myself...

Remove the Attacker/Defender tag in the score box.

Really, I just want scenario designers to be able to remove the entire score box for certain scenarios. It gives away far too much...

When I build a campaign scenario for 2 players, the attacker should NOT have instant, 100% percent accurate knowledge of whether or not the enemy has been there long enough to dig in.

[Alkiviadis]

Alliviate the Borg Spotting syndrome.

Tactical formations: Perhaps difficult with infantry, but AFVs I think are another story. On a platoon level The Russians used 2 formations: Line & Column with the 3 tank platoon, echelonment was practiced on a Company level using platoon lines or columns. A modified wedge was also used by the 5 tank platoon. Western armies circa '43+ added, on the platoon level, the wedge, the refuse right/left, the echelon right/left. In addition The US Army briefly used what was called the "diced 5", which looked just like the '5' on dice. It was abandoned because in action it was found that generally only 2 tanks could effectively engage a target at any one time. Formations for AFVs would greatly speed setup & certainly play in tank heavy scenario/ops. As an ex-software engineer, I suspect this would take a little more code that I think at 1st glance, on the other hand, given the limited # of formations & # of AFVs/formation, I don't think it would be that difficult.

[ September 25, 2004, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Alkiviadis ]

[Philippe]

More on formations.

I looked at a couple of WWII photographs of infantry moving around, and mentally compared what I was looking at to Combat Mission.

Now I understand that the tiles that we know, love, and loathe will be done away with, but just for the moment I find it useful to think in those terms.

An infantry squad of brits moving down a road in column formation seems to take up about two tiles of space.

I haven't done any systematic studies, but that leads me to suspect that maybe what CM needs are some infantry formations, a bit like those that show up in Napoleonic games. Nothing complicated, just a marching column (that gets a slight movement bonus and can trigger a follow the leader situation), a normal formation, and a dispersed formation. Normal formation would be what we have now, dispersed would spill into several hexes (mental slip there...sorry). The idea would be that a squad or a team in dispersed formation would be less vulnerable to incoming fire.

Not sure how this would flow through the game system, and not sure what authentic dispersal parameters should be, but I think the idea should be considered because as it stands now the troops seem so bunched together you should be able to take out a whole sqaud with a single grenade. Or light phaser...

[Philippe]

I know that BFC has had a policy against blood and guts in the past, and I'm not advocating that now. I'm not sure that going all the way to having an animation for casualties is such a good idea, but I do think that, especially if they manage to have 10-12 figures in a 10-12 man squad there should be more bodies lying around on the battlefield.

Why ?

Things are a little too antisceptic right now. I find it a little bit disturbing when I see the few bodies lying around that come with the current engine, and I think it is a good thing if we aren't quite so casual about the death and destruction that we're inflicting.

When I play the bad guys I don't want to forget that they're bad guys (I can't identify with something that's swathed in swastikas), and when I get people killed I want to be reminded of what I'm responsible for. I'm not asking for Hollywood blood and gore, I just want my conscience tweaked a bit more. I want to be a little uncomfortable.

The Robert E. Lee quote about war being terrible comes to mind.

[Philippe]

And I want some kind of modeling for aid stations and the treatment/evacuation of casualties.

I don't want to have to give orders for it (beyond, perhaps, designating where these places should be), and I don't even need to see it.

But casualties getting moved back from the front cause fluctuations in the number of available troops, and that fluctuation is what I'm interested in. Especially if it lowers the overall casualty rate (you can't get shot if you've had to drag someone back to the aid station two miles away).

And I realize that this kind of thing is a lot easier to model with the current three man squads.

[junk2drive]

i have played some game that had medics. it would be interesting in cm to be able to heal some troops and send them back into the battle. it could certainly change the outcome.

i know someone will say that is not in the timeframe of cm 30-60 minute battles.

nor are a lot of the suggestions in these threads.

[Pzman]

Originally posted by Philippe:

Not sure how this would flow through the game system, and not sure what authentic dispersal parameters should be, but I think the idea should be considered because as it stands now the troops seem so bunched together you should be able to take out a whole sqaud with a single grenade. Or light phaser...

I still think you are thinking too much about what you "see" in the current CM. Just because you cannot see your men moving in formations does not mean they aren't. That said, I do agree that they may be a little bunched up when they are in open ground, and forested areas.

In the future would be nice to have a list of commands that determine whether your men use a tight or wide formation though.

When I play the bad guys I don't want to forget that they're bad guys (I can't identify with something that's swathed in swastikas), and when I get people killed I want to be reminded of what I'm responsible for. I'm not asking for Hollywood blood and gore, I just want my conscience tweaked a bit more. I want to be a little uncomfortable.

There are lots of FPS for you then. I can assure you I don't feel any worse when I play FPS and see a bunch of dead bodies rather than one. Its not real, you will never feel uncomfortable in the way you call for. Not to say that we shouldn't, I wish we would, but I know that I don't.

And I want some kind of modeling for aid stations and the treatment/evacuation of casualties.

For what purpose? That just adds more of the "blood and guts" that BFC doesn't want to show, and in the past has seen as outside the scope of the game. (Not to say that it couldn't be, just a view based on past comments by BFC.)